What are the facts? Please keep an open mind and read the article first before casting your vote.

While there is certainly proof that mutations do occur in nature; There is absolutely no real evidence to support the theory of evolution at this time (for over the past 150 years of "Dino-digging"). Including the sedimentary column.

18

26%

There probably is evidence to support this theory, yet scientist are at a loss to explain it appropriately.

18

26%

Scientist are great at making shit up when they have no evidence to prove something that is false to begin with.

10

14%

I believe in Santa. He's a real person that lives all the way deep at the north pole and brings me presents every year. The presents prove that he's real. I also leave him milk and cookies to snack on and while I don't ever see him, I just know with all my heart, that he is the one who eats all the cookies and milk. Or, I wish I had a dogasaur like Dino.

There are no discrepancies or conflicts between Science and the Bible. Only misunderstanding on the human part.

The Bible no where states that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, only that the earth was recreated 6,000 years ago. "In the beginning" was not the beginning of the earth but a statement of the fact that there was a beginning and so there did exist an earth prior to 6,000 years ago. I believe that I went into this with you on another thread.

It's called the "Gap" theory and it fits with the bible verses depicting the earth as an ancient world. Genesis 1:1 and genesis 1:2, are two separate chapters of the same book.

"Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth."-Psalm 104:30

Yes, I think I got that bit - an unusual perspective, which was why I tried to create a thread where non-evolutionists could discover where their opinions overlap and where they diverge, without interference from the likes of me and a bunch of others. Not much response so far - maybe I'll have to bump it.

But that wasn't what I was asking. Why the specific "6000 years"?

And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.

AAFitz wrote:Further, evolution does nothing to deny God. It at best sets up a scenario that allows that he did not have to create it. But it hardly suggests God could not have created the entire cycle of evolution, and since all scientific evidence suggests just that...Even if there is a God, that's how he did it anyways.

Until recently I also use to believe something like that. I would say to myself, "OK, God recreated this Earth 6,000 ago. But why could not evolution also be a method that God uses and used prior to 6,000 years ago. Until I realized all the evidence used by evolutionary scientist were all lies dismissed many years ago, yet they are still taught as fact today. There never has been a transitional fossil and yet evolutionary scientist continue to use the fossil records to prove that evolution is real when it is not.

PILTDOWN FORGERYThis fossil was displayed as the best transitional form between ape and man at the time. It was on displayed for more than 30 years. In 1949 experts discovered the truth that a part of an orangutan skull, The jaw part, had been attached to a human skull.This one was advanced in 1912 and...Dismissed in 1953

NEBRASKA MANThis was cooked up in 1922, on the basis of a single fossil tooth. The creator of this hoax did not slack in giving it a complicated Latin name; Hesperothecus Haroldcooku. It was later discovered that the tooth actually belonged to a wild pig.

NEANDERTHAAL MANThis one was advanced as evidence in 1856.Dismissed in 1960.

ZINJANTROPHUSThis one was advanced as evidence in 1959.Dismissed in 1960.

RAMAPITHECUSThis one was advanced as evidence in 1964.Dismissed in 1979

And many more so called fossil "evidence" continues to be used to teach and advance the theory of evolution as truth when it is not.

So no; I can no longer subscribe to the theory of evolution as being any part of a God who deals in truth and not lies.

Everything you say is false.

You are a liar.

All the science you believe in is a lie.

Liar.

Lie.

Not true.

One more: Fabulous fabrication of fantasy. That's what you believe in.

I just wanted to respond in kind, since you kind of dodged the entire question, with I don't believe in it because its a lie...with a few indecisive examples...ill give you that much.

Now go through and show all the religious beliefs there are in the world.

Im sure yours is right though. It just has to be...scientifically speaking.

Anyone who thinks the Theory of Evolution is certifiably stupid and should be ignored. There is no debate and I wish threads like these were locked due to the misinformation and ignorance that is spread.

2012-04-05 19:05:58 - Eagle Orion: For the record, my supposed irrationality has kept me in the game well enough. Just in rather bizaare fashion.

AAFitz wrote:Further, evolution does nothing to deny God. It at best sets up a scenario that allows that he did not have to create it. But it hardly suggests God could not have created the entire cycle of evolution, and since all scientific evidence suggests just that...Even if there is a God, that's how he did it anyways.

Until recently I also use to believe something like that. I would say to myself, "OK, God recreated this Earth 6,000 ago. But why could not evolution also be a method that God uses and used prior to 6,000 years ago.

Because that date is a fiction, originally figured by some folks who decided to ignore millenia of church tradition and history and decided that they suddenly understood better than anyone the Bible timeline.

Viceroy63 wrote:Until I realized all the evidence used by evolutionary scientist were all lies dismissed many years ago, yet they are still taught as fact today.

You keep saying this, but have yet to provide even one really true example. A few errors, fully acknowledged does not constitute 'all of evolutionary science".

Viceroy63 wrote:There never has been a transitional fossil and yet evolutionary scientist continue to use the fossil records to prove that evolution is real when it is not.

What do you think a transition fossil is?

Viceroy63 wrote:PILTDOWN FORGERYThis fossil was displayed as the best transitional form between ape and man at the time. It was on displayed for more than 30 years. In 1949 experts discovered the truth that a part of an orangutan skull, The jaw part, had been attached to a human skull.This one was advanced in 1912 and...Dismissed in 1953

Like we have said, errors.... but you ignore the other fossil evidence. And, also that humans have less fossil evidence than many other species for some specific reasons, not the least of which is that humans are a pretty recent species AND because early humanoid lifestyles meant fewer remains would be preserved (fewer land species, in general, are preserved than ocean species).

Viceroy63 wrote:NEBRASKA MANThis was cooked up in 1922, on the basis of a single fossil tooth. The creator of this hoax did not slack in giving it a complicated Latin name; Hesperothecus Haroldcooku. It was later discovered that the tooth actually belonged to a wild pig.

Yeah, and some creationist wanna-be's are STILL claiming they have evidence of foot prints of modern humans in the same rock as dinosaurs, despite the fact that this has been disproven over and over...

And the strange part is that Dr Morris has NOT refuted that, unlike the many "examples" you bring up which were refuted by scientists, not religious investigators claiming to practice science.

Viceroy63 wrote:NEANDERTHAAL MANThis one was advanced as evidence in 1856.Dismissed in 1960.

Uh? come again? Where do you get the idea that Neaderthal man was dismissed?

Neaderthals existed. The evidence for them has expanded, not shrunk. As more evidence is accumulated, many ideas about who they were have changed. For example, there is at least one anthropologist who suggests, because the fractures in their bones are very similar to injuries seen in rodeo riders, that the Neaderthal hunted by basically jumping on their prey, as well as the more typically envisioned idea of groups surrounding prey with big spears. Whether they are ancestors to modern humans is another question.. but it is still a question. Ironically, as someone else pointed out earlier, it looks like while they may not have been an ancestor, they were actually another type of human, capable perhaps of breeding with Cro Magnum

Viceroy63 wrote:ZINJANTROPHUSThis one was advanced as evidence in 1959.Dismissed in 1960.

RAMAPITHECUSThis one was advanced as evidence in 1964.Dismissed in 1979

And many more so called fossil "evidence" continues to be used to teach and advance the theory of evolution as truth when it is not,

Show your references. They are just plain wrong.

Viceroy63 wrote:So no; I can no longer subscribe to the theory of evolution as being any part of a God who deals in truth and not lies.

I see, so you refuse to accept challenged and verified data put forward by not just thousands, but millions of scientists and graduate students, even amateurs in some cases, but you believe every word put forward by Dr Morris and his cronies, even though they have been utterly refuted by any credible scientist that investigates their claims.... MANY Of which don't even really require science to refute, just a basic understanding of how you actually prove something. I mean, to claim that a 4 year study of Echnidea "finding nothing" is conclusive that evolutionists are wrong about its descent just requires knowing that its taken decades, even hundred of years to prove some basic concepts in science.. and that many questions have been investigated without answers and yet, scientists still feel the answers might someday be found.

oss spy wrote:Anyone who thinks the Theory of Evolution is certifiably stupid and should be ignored. There is no debate and I wish threads like these were locked due to the misinformation and ignorance that is spread.

If Evolution was a real science then there would not be a debate. The fact that "men of science" create false information to dupe people into believing that Evolution does happen and has happened is what the debate is really all about. If Evolution was a reality then why lie about the facts and create hoaxes to make the gullible believe that the theory of evolution is real?

Only watched the second one (very up to date sources you have by the way) and apart from the old "no transitional forms" argument the main point they seemed to have in there scientifically was "if dinosaurs evolved into birds, then how could feathers evolve from scales?"

With your powers combined, y'all could hit Critical Derpidity. Imagine all the houses that could be powered--if only such power could be harnessed. I beckon thee to join powers with Lionz, so we can experiment.

P.S. I'm sending you a 6' AC power cord. While typing alongside Lionz' posts, try sticking it in your butt and hooking it into a nearby desktop. Tell us if you notice anything unusual. If you notice nothing, try sticking the female end into your butt, and determine whether the rate of your house's electricity consumption has decreased.

oss spy wrote:Anyone who thinks the Theory of Evolution is certifiably stupid and should be ignored. There is no debate and I wish threads like these were locked due to the misinformation and ignorance that is spread.

If Evolution was a real science then there would not be a debate. The fact that "men of science" create false information to dupe people into believing that Evolution does happen and has happened is what the debate is really all about. If Evolution was a reality then why lie about the facts and create hoaxes to make the gullible believe that the theory of evolution is real?

You know what? You're right! It's all a hoax! Do you know what this implies?!

Every scientist in the entire world got together and meticulously planned out how false it would be. They then planted fossils in the ground and fabricated the atomic theory to prove the age of the fossils, and they AGAIN fabricated the theory of radioactive decay. In an attempt to further their nefarious deeds, they also staged WWII and falsified the atomic bombing of Nagasiki! IT'S ALL A HOAX!!111!!11!1

So this means:

Evolution is a lie, because:

1. The Earth is young, which means2. Fossils couldn't have formed, which means3. Scientists planted fossils, which means4. The scientists faked the age, which means5. They faked radioactive decay, which means6. Atomic bombs, nuclear plants, and cancer treatment don't exist.

You're a genius!

2012-04-05 19:05:58 - Eagle Orion: For the record, my supposed irrationality has kept me in the game well enough. Just in rather bizaare fashion.

GreecePwns wrote:Do viceroy and lionz have similar unorthodox theories in the field of neuroscience? Cellular biology? Quantum physics? Anything else?

If not, why did they pick this one as thee only one to take such radical stances?

People who take the (very radical) Judeo-Christian position that the Bible is to be considered literal truth rather than parable need to attack anything that disagrees with it. The Bible has no opinion on neuroscience or quantum physics, and therefore those disciplines are not under attack. The Bible does have an opinion on the origin of life, and therefore the scientific version of the origin of life is under attack.

Ironically, the radicals are standing on a very weak and wobbly platform when they try to build a case for a literal Bible through creation. Most (mainstream, non-radical) scholars of theology agree that Genesis clearly shows itself under critical analysis as patchwork quilt of divergent religious teachings that were only later spliced together into a single book.

Nothing reveals the flimsiness of this patchwork as well as the creation story itself. The first version of the creation story, as told in Genesis 1 through 2:4, is clearly inconsistent with the second version of the creation story, as told in Genesis 2:5 through 3:24.

In the first version of the creation story, plants and trees were created on the third day (Genesis 1:11 to 1:13) creatures of the water and air were created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:20 to 1:23) while land animals and Man were not created until the sixth day (Genesis 1:24 to 1:31). In the second version, days are not specified, but the sequence is herbaceous plants (NOT trees!) first (Genesis 2:5) Man second (Genesis 2:7) trees third (Genesis 2:8 to 2:9) land animals and birds last (Genesis 2:19). This cannot be explained away; either the Bible is to be taken literally or it is not, and if it is then the first sequence (herbaceous plants, trees, water creatures, air creatures, land creatures, man) is clearly in conflict with the second sequence (herbaceous plants, man, trees, land creatures, air creatures.)

In the first creation story, Man and Woman were created simultaneously and are implicitly equal. ("in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.") Even the original Hebrew text uses purely gender-neutral language through the first creation story, demonstrating its origins in a sexually egalitarian branch of Judaism. In the second story, Adam is busy for a long time (Genesis 2:15 to 2:19) before it is decided that he needs a woman. (Genesis 2:20 "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.") Even the wording is insultingly sexist; the woman is created only after it turns out that cattle are inadequate at satisfying Adam's needs. Adam is formed directly from the Earth, but his wife is formed from his rib, clearly indicating her subordinate status. Furthermore, while Adam has a name from the moment of his creation, the woman is not named Eve until after getting thrown out of Eden. Before that she has to be content with her status as somewhat superior to cattle. Clearly the second creation story originates from a male-supremacist priestly tradition very, very different from the gender-neutral first story.

Dukasaur wrote:People who take the (very radical) Judeo-Christian position that the Bible is to be considered literal truth rather than parable need to attack anything that disagrees with it. The Bible has no opinion on neuroscience or quantum physics, and therefore those disciplines are not under attack. The Bible does have an opinion on the origin of life, and therefore the scientific version of the origin of life is under attack.

"The scientific version???" To what are you referring to Duke?

This thread is to prove scientifically that the theory of evolution has no foundation and is in fact fabricated by scientist with false evidence to make people think that it is a real truth when in fact it is still only and just a theory. All the evidence is posted all along this thread starting from the Original post.

Dukasaur wrote:Ironically, the radicals are standing on a very weak and wobbly platform when they try to build a case for a literal Bible through creation. Most (mainstream, non-radical) scholars of theology agree that Genesis clearly shows itself under critical analysis as patchwork quilt of divergent religious teachings that were only later spliced together into a single book.

Most (mainstream, non-radical) scholars of theology would say that because it is an attack on the truth where as a lie like the theory of evolution is advanced. But they never agree even in their attacks. It is not the bible that attacks science, it is the other way around.

It was only about 40 or 50 years ago when scientist first realized that the universe did in fact have a beginning. Before then it was thought to be an eternal Universe demonstrating the eternal aspects of the nature of God. There was no way to confirm or deny, either way, that the universe had a beginning. Who would have thought that? Who could have imagined it?

But some 3,000 years ago It was revealed that the Universe did have a beginning. Who could make up something like this? In no other religious book or religious writings do you see such a bold statement as...

"IN THE BEGINNING..."

Those three words alone strongly state the fact that there was a beginning to everything; That this universe did in fact begin. And this statement was only made in the Bible and 3,000 years before it could be known as truth.

Dukasaur wrote:Nothing reveals the flimsiness of this patchwork as well as the creation story itself. The first version of the creation story, as told in Genesis 1 through 2:4, is clearly inconsistent with the second version of the creation story, as told in Genesis 2:5 through 3:24.

Time and again it is proven that there is no inconsistency to the Bible record. Only that humans misunderstand because they simply don't want to know the truth. People would much rather listen to lies. All apparent Bible discrepancies can be explained but not here. That sounds like you have the makings of another thread.

One of the reasons why I wrote this article is to stay focused on the issue. So I am pointing out the obvious lies that are presented as truth in the theory of evolution. Unlike the other threads that start one way and end up talking about something else?

But please do start a thread on those apparent inconsistencies of the Bible. And let me know when you have started it, so that I may visit. But on this thread the only real issue are the false and fabricated evidence that are used to support a theory that has no proof and no foundation to it, AT ALL!!!

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."-2Timothy 4:3-4

Viceroy63 wrote:"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."-2Timothy 4:3-4

Ah, the books of Timothy: my favourite. They're the ones that I use to keep all the women in line.

"Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence."-1 Timothy 2:11,12

crispybits wrote:I think you may have something there Timminz. Maybe Viceroy and Lionz' science teacher was a woman, so they biblically decreed to themselves they should not listen to anything she said.

(more likely their science teachers were either inept and didn't encourage independent critical thinking or the creationist brainwashing had already got to them by that point)

You make an interesting point. I was thinking it was more of a mommy issue. How can a child respect and obey their mother when they're taught to let no woman exercise authority over them?

Viceroy, are you afraid of responding to all posted evidence? Do you understand that the whole forum looks at you as a giant joke by continuing with your stupidities and continually dodging everything? Stop posting useless long responses to semi related stuff and answer to all the points that have been made. Ps: anything comming from the bible is not evidence. Otherwise my book about humpa loompas will be quoted in this thread and i will expect people to take it as evidence!

Viceroy63 wrote:But some 3,000 years ago It was revealed that the Universe did have a beginning. Who could make up something like this? In no other religious book or religious writings do you see such a bold statement as...

"IN THE BEGINNING..."

Those three words alone strongly state the fact that there was a beginning to everything; That this universe did in fact begin. And this statement was only made in the Bible and 3,000 years before it could be known as truth.

Actually, no and no. But let's look at the actual text, according to the The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE).

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth"

[1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word. In the literary structure of six days, the creation events in the first three days are related to those in the second three.

The seventh day, on which God rests, the climax of the account, falls outside the six-day structure.Until modern times the first line was always translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Several comparable ancient cosmogonies, discovered in recent times, have a “when…then” construction, confirming the translation “when…then” here as well. “When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state. The traditional translation, “In the beginning,” does not reflect the Hebrew syntax of the clause.

Now, it's true that Biblical footnotes (especially good Catholic Bibles) tend to be wordy, but notice that your assertion that no other religious work would have such a statement is flat out false; it was common among creation stories at the time. What is not common among those stories that typically involved conflict and wars between gods to create what the people saw around them was the methodical formation of the universe merely by the word of God.

Viceroy63 wrote:"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."-2Timothy 4:3-4

For someone proclaiming truth, you have a funny way of ignoring it. Saying "everyone else is lying...and I don't even have to prove it because its so obvious anyone with sense would see that". Is not scientific or even intelligent discourse. Its childish idiocy. Its DEFINITELY not Christianity!

You believe flat out proven lies and then proclaim you are "telling the truth".You are not even a true Creationist, you are just a flat out liar.. and unless you bother to actually answer real and true criticism, explain why your ONLY criteria for ""valid" versus "invalid" data is just that the invalid data is anything not agreeing with your current ideas, you are also a troll.